SW Idaho Resource Advisory Committee

Minutes

April 19, 2006

 

 

Attendees

SW Idaho RAC Members:  Phil Davis (RAC Chairperson), Lois Van Hoover, Terry Gestrin, Sandra Mitchell, John Cramer, John Gebhards, Tom Glass, Dale Hanson, John McCarthy, Joe Hinson, Darel Harris, Bob Baker, Scott Stouder, Herb Malaney(alternate),

 

Designated Federal Officer:  Doug Gochnour

 

Others:  Andy Brunelle (Legislative Affairs, USFS), Joey Pearson (Notetaker)

 

 

Welcome, Meeting Objectives and Agenda Review

 

• Chair, Phil Davis, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.
• Doug reviewed the agenda for today.

 

 

Review and approval of March 23 meeting minutes

 

Dale Hanson moved to accept minutes with one correction.  The next RAC meeting date should be April 19 instead of April 20.

Terry Gestrin seconded the motion to approve

Unanimous decision to accept minutes as written with correction

 

 

Approval of RAC Expenses

 

Meeting expenses of $496.00 for March meeting were reviewed.

 

Tom Glass moved to approve

Dale Hanson seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve March meeting expenses

 

 

RAC Funding Balance Update

 

We have the $159,000 FY 2004 Carryover (PSCP) back in our account.

The $700,786 FY 2005 Carryover is not available yet.  We do not physically have it, but it is still on the books to use/approve for projects.  We can make obligations now for future use of this money.

Current balance in the RAC account, as of today, is $197,803.00.

Project Log Update

 

The team reviewed the Project Log and projects to be presented today. 

 

 

MISC

 

Doug brought the final RAC brochures for handouts at your offices.  Take as many as you want.  Doug circulated the RAC mailing list.  If you want to add anyone, pencil in.

 

 

REVIEW OF PROJECTS

 

 

Amount Requested = $75,000.00

Project Description: 

This request is to develop and install three high-quality state-of-the-art environmental education exhibits.  They will be installed at:

 

• Foothills Environmental Learning Center in Boise
• Payette National Forest lands adjacent to Tamarack Resort near Donnelly
• Traveling exhibit that will rotate among various Forest Service offices and visitors centers

 

The environmental education exhibits will be accessible to all outdoor recreationists but will be specifically targeted toward hikers and mountain bikers.  They will educate outdoor recreationists about the history of livestock grazing on National Forests and other public lands; the management of livestock grazing on National Forest and other public lands; the intermixed pattern of land ownership in Idaho; and steps that outdoor recreationists can take to prevent and reduce conflicts with ranchers (such as closing gates and avoiding sheep guard dogs).

 

These environmental education exhibits will be installed in places with high volumes of Idaho residents and visitors and will be seen by hundreds, if not thousands, of visitors per year.

Discussion:

 

Was this presented to the County Commissioners?

• Doug did not encourage them to do this since this is a multi-RAC, statewide project.  The Association of Idaho Counties has been updated.  A suggestion was made for them to get on the County Lands agenda for updates.

Where is the funding going?  Where do the signs go?

• They are still working on location and design/style of signs (outside the education facility). Costs are materials for the signs themselves.

 

Are they targeting parking lots and areas where people take off/launch?  They are seeing a big impact from hunters and ATV users (leaving gates open, etc).

• They understand the impact of ATVs.  She hopes to do more statewide, starting with Tamarack.  They are hoping to do more with signs.  Right now, there is a lot of activity with other groups getting this same message out.  They do not want to duplicate the ATV effort.

 

What about maintenance? 

• Idaho rangeland Commission will maintain the signs once they are installed. They have addressed this (vandalism, etc.).  They are hoping to create a better environment with everyone’s involvement.

 

RAC would like some feedback of how this education process went.

• Gretchen will get us results of public opinion poll being done next year.

 

Part 1 Evaluation

Matching   Funds	Multiple Benefits	Affordable	Completed in One Year or    Annual Increments	Long-term  Benefits	Finite Project	Admin  Costs
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N

 

Tom Glass moved to go to Part 2

Sandra Mitchell seconded motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
5	3	5	5	5	5	5	5

 

Bob Baker moved to approve

Lois Van Hoover seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve project

 

 

 

Amount Requested:  $7,000.00

Project Description:

This project will complete basic deferred maintenance on two trails, Twin Lakes #187, and Lake Fork #188, in the Rapid River drainage using Northwest Youth Corps, thus meeting the following objectives:

 

• Maintain and improve trails used by the general public and an area outfitter.
• Address concerns about degraded trail conditions negatively affecting water quality and fish habitat conditions in Rapid River.
• Offer local area youth a safe and supportive first work experience that incorporates education and mastery of basic employment skills, while promoting development of an individual work ethic and an understanding of resource management issues.

 

There is a mix of needed trail work ranging from light maintenance and clearing of downed trees to heavy maintenance, including construction of puncheon and small reroutes around bogs and stream crossings.

 

There is lots of use by commercial outfitters and guides.  This is prime big game hunting ground.  Outfitters put money and their own work back into this system.  This area is located in Adams County.  There are letters of support from NYC and Adams County.  The NYC crew is very productive in a one week period because they work on location, adding to the efficiency of these crews.

 

Discussion:

 

What are you doing with boggy areas?

• The NEPA is complete. They will be re-routing some of these portions (up to 500 feet of trail).  They are considering bringing in black filter cloth and putting soil on top to reconstruct these bogs.  They have used this method in other areas, and it works well.

 

Do you utilize the money received from outfitters for improvement to this area? 

• Yes

 

(In the pictures) are these ruts from motorcycles?  Is this repair going to last?

• They completed a project at Loon Lake two years ago that was very successful (a similar boggy area) and it dried up well and worked great.

 

Does this cover all of the boggy area? 

• One week of work will probably meet the intent of two major boggy areas.  Some of the non-motorized trails will still be in bad shape (potential future project).

 

 

What are the rates for NYC?  It looks like this comes to $700/week, per person. 

·        There is a cost-share agreement in place between the Forest Service and NYC – this is not something we negotiate.

 

Lois wants to check on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.  Do any of these funds go back to the Counties within the Payette NF (the 3% fund)?

 

 

Part 1 Evaluation

Matching   Funds	Multiple Benefits	Affordable	Completed in One Year or    Annual Increments	Long-term  Benefits	Finite Project	Admin  Costs
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N

 

Sandra Mitchell moved to go to Part 2

Dale Hanson seconded motion

Unanimous decision to move to Part 2

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
5	4	5	5	5	5	5	5

 

Bob Baker moved to approve

Sandra Mitchell seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve project

 

 

Lunch

 

Kelci Karl joined the group.  She is the new Policy Analyst for Idaho Association of Counties.

 

Discussion of how to close out RAC funding if the law is not reauthorized by Congress

 

HERE ARE SOME DATES TO REMEMBER:

 

September 30, 2006

Counties propose their FY06 Title II payments.

All projects have to be thru RAC for recommendation by that date.

 

December 2006

RAC will get last payment under current authority. If not reauthorized, we don’t know what the amount will be (Counties may choose to put more funds into Title III vs. Title II).

 

September 2007

Projects have to be obligated (signed agreements, management code, obligated)

 

Does our authority end on Sept 30, 2006? 

• RAC will exist for however long it is chartered.  Right now, that’s one more year.
• Whatever is left of our money (we won’t know what it is), we will have to assign to projects before Sept 30.
• There was a suggestion that we could do all YCC projects at once to expedite RAC review.  Also, reoccurring projects like fuels treatment, weed treatment could also be done as programmatic work to be done. 
• NEPA and the actual design work doesn’t have to be done at the time. 
• Remember - any money not allocated to projects by Oct 1 goes back to the treasury.
• If we get lots of projects, we could rank them first for priorities and then make decisions later and fund down the priority list until we run out of funds.

 

Do we lose our authority with sunset of legislation? 

• No, the projects have to be approved by RAC and submitted to Forest Supervisors by Sept 30, 2006.  We could not accept new proposals after Sept 30.  Charters are good through 2007 as official RAC.

 

Doug will call Counties to talk about what their Title II set aside is, rather than waiting until closer to Sept 30.  The group discussed PILT, and how counties are affected differently. 

 

 

PILT = The government compensating for large areas of federal land where the Counties cannot collect property tax dollars, causing a shortage of tax dollars for services such as roads and schools (i.e. Valley County). 

 

We want to still make good decisions and not feel like RAC is being pushed to use up this money.  Look at programs to get some money designated, but look more specifically to where the money will be spent.

 

Didn’t the North Central Idaho RAC make a decision that 50% of their Title II projects had to pay back into the 25% fund?

• Doug thought this may have been their philosophy, but it wasn’t anything official.  They wanted to put money back into the system with their projects (i.e. timber sales to create 25% funds).

 

We would not need specific locations, NEPA, or consultation done by Sept 30.  Just generic projections as to where the projects would be.  We could set aside a certain dollar amount for specific types of projects (weeds, trails, etc.).

 

We still have some projects coming in under-programmed.  Funds have to be committed by Sept. 30.  We may want to look at projects on a broad scale to decide what we are doing with the next year and the reauthorization issue. 

 

Discussion from the Reno meeting

 

The land sale issue was not a popular option.

Regarding the Craig-Wyden bill, the sun sets this year (Sept. 06).  Anything beyond that is a whole new bill.  Need to push for this money to be re-authorized through the Idaho delegation.  Make presentations to conservation groups to push for support of this bill.  Emphasize to Larry Craig the importance of this issue.

 

Doug will send a letter to county commissioners/clerks asking them what their Title II dollars will be in December.  Lois suggested the letters be sent out individually (with commissioner’s names) because sometimes they don’t see them otherwise. 

 

If the Craig-Wyden goes away, what happens to roads and schools in some counties will be dramatic.  Valley County will be hit hard. 

 

The question was asked if counties would start to shift money to Title III.  Phil responded that Title III has more sideboards than Title II and he doesn’t see a lot of money that would be shifted around.

 

The current proposal is looking at a reduction over the next five years to $0.  There needs to be a focus on re-authorization for this year, and then actively pursue a long-term solution.

 

Andy B. can put together a percentage breakdown of where RAC funds have gone in the past from the national database.  Lois asked if any of those projects contributed to the 25% fund.

 

 

Public Forum

 

Phil Davis asked if anyone from the public wished to comment.  No comments were received.

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $5,100.00

Project Description: 

This project will allow a private landowner to dispose of slash piles in compliance with state timber practices while preventing mortality of the federally listed northern Idaho ground squirrel.  We will use this opportunity to enhance habitat for this population and ensure persistence of the oldest known NIGS site on national forest land.

 

Slash piles will be dismantled, suitable large woody debris will be scattered throughout the private land portion of the Huckleberry NIGS site to provide foraging and burrowing cover.  The remainder of the material will be removed and burned off site.  Native grasses will be seeded where ground was disturbed from machinery.  Noxious weeds will be treated as necessary.

 

Discussion:

 

Are there comparable projects anywhere?

• They are not the same.  They want to use slash pile material around to enhance habitat in the area.

 

 

 

There was discussion about what time of year this would happen so as not to disturb the squirrels.

 

Jim Hinson suggested we not go through the process

Bob Baker moved to approve project

Darel Harris seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve project

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $1,660.00

Project description:

Provide the necessary trail maintenance including removing downed timber and brushing to allow unhindered travel by all modes of travel allowed in wilderness areas.  The project includes 38 miles of wilderness trail.  Work will include removal of downed timber that would require one using the trail to move off the trail to continue.  Small timber that can be stepped over will not be removed.  Work will be performed in the summer of 2006.

 

 

Amount Requested = $1,153.00

Project description:

Provide the necessary trail maintenance including removing downed timber and brushing to allow unhindered travel by all modes of travel allowed in wilderness areas.  Small trees that can be stepped over will not be removed.  Downed timber and brush that requires stepping off the trail will be removed.  Work will be performed the first half of September 2006.

 

 

Amount Requested:  $1,979.00

Project description:

Provide the necessary trail maintenance including removing downed timber and brushing to allow unhindered travel by all modes of travel allowed.  Small trees that can be stepped over will not be removed (approx. 4” diameter or less).  Downed timber and brush that requires stepping off the trail will be removed.  Work will be performed in June 2006.

 

Discussion:

Doug asked if we would be establishing precedence for other volunteer groups by approving this type of project.  He thinks this is a little different case because of the volunteers donating their own livestock, food, etc., to get the job done.  It was agreed by the group this is the case.

 

John Millington asked about the funding and how it works.

• These three projects will involve two different Forests. As soon as the agreements are signed, you can start the work, complete the job, and then submit the final invoice indicating completion for payment.  A few weeks later you will receive a check.  Photos with the invoice would be nice to document that the job was done. 

 

Sandra Mitchell moved to approve all three projects

John Cramer seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve these projects

 

 

Next RAC meeting

 

May 17 – RAC meeting

June 21 – RAC Team field trip - The RAC team will go to site at Landmark and Warm Lake.   Meet in Cascade, Carol McCoy-Brown will provide sack lunches, and everyone will travel up to Landmark site.